w
w
ap
eP
m
e
tr
.X
w
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS
for the guidance of teachers
9694 THINKING SKILLS
9694/22
Paper 22 (Critical Reasoning), maximum raw mark 45
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of
the examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not
indicate the details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began,
which would have considered the acceptability of alternative answers.
Mark schemes must be read in conjunction with the question papers and the report on the
examination.
•
CIE will not enter into discussions or correspondence in connection with these mark schemes.
CIE is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2009 question papers for most IGCSE,
GCE Advanced Level and Advanced Subsidiary Level syllabuses and some Ordinary Level
syllabuses.
om
.c
MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2009 question paper
s
er
GCE Advanced Subsidiary Level and GCE Advanced Level
Page 2
1
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2009
Syllabus
9694
Paper
22
(a) How reliable are the reports published in the North Star?
[4]
The reports are not very reliable/the reports are reliable insofar as they report facts but not
the speculation. They have a Vested Interest to sensationalise and sell papers. They jump
from slight evidence to strong conclusions. They make assertions, questions, insinuations,
but give almost no reliable evidence. The only possible ‘fact’ in the first report is that Migi
could have been meeting Dal Sam. This comes from an unnamed ‘reliable’ source but telling
us it is reliable doesn’t make it so. As it is unnamed and in the context of this report, the
source may well not be reliable. But the paper is unlikely to publish as fact something which
cannot be substantiated, and other evidence confirms this meeting. But it is not reliable to
infer from this meeting that Migi is joining the terrorist activities. In the second report the only
‘facts’ are that there was an explosion and three people were injured (we do not know to
what extent). These facts are likely to be reliable, the explosion is corroborated by the police
statement. However, the cause of the explosion is open to question. The paper has jumped
to conclusions again.
4 marks: Strong support given to candidate’s conclusion, grounded in solid understanding
and evaluation of credibility issues. The focus should be on these reports rather
than on the paper as a whole (although this does not exclude some comments
about the paper as a whole).
3 marks: Reasonable support given to candidate’s conclusion, based on acceptable
understanding/evaluation of credibility issues. Some mention of the reports as well
as the paper should be made.
2 marks: Some support given to the candidate’s conclusion based on some understanding/
evaluation of credibility issues.
1 mark: Inconclusive point or points which might be used to show that the North Star is
(un)reliable with some connection to credibility.
[Max 4]
(b) How reasonable is it to believe that Migi did not know about Peter Long’s possible
identity as Dal Sam? Justify your answer.
[3]
It depends on how strong the link was between his everyday ‘Pete’ identity and his identity as
‘Dal Sam’. The first police report says that this is an ‘alleged’ identity, which indicates that
Dal Sam might be almost a creation and not strongly linked to a particular person. Even if
Pete is Dal Sam, it might be possible for a naïve girl who remembers a childhood friend to be
misled. It is also possible for people not to know everything about each other. So it is
plausible that, even if Pete is Dal Sam, this is a surprise to Migi. On the other hand, if it is
very well known that Pete is Dal Sam, and if he is more or less openly engaged in terrorist
activities, it would be harder to hide this from Migi. She also has a clear vested interest to
pretend that she does not know about any connection to preserve her public image or
repudiate any allegations about her own links to the terrorist group. So, although it is
plausible that she didn’t know, it is also quite possible that she did.
3 marks: Candidate’s conclusion strongly justified by reasoning with some subtlety of ‘how
reasonable’ – so consideration of extent.
2 marks: Reasonable support for candidate’s conclusion (perhaps less subtle).
1 mark: Candidate provides some comments which might support conclusion.
[Max 3]
© UCLES 2009
Page 3
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2009
Syllabus
9694
Paper
22
(c) Explain the significance of the two televised Police Statements in judging this case. [3]
The Police Statements are useful in bringing the issue back to what is known rather than
unfounded implications. From the Police Statements, we know that the connection between
Pete Long and Dal Sam is not as certain as the North Star suggested. We also know that
the police are investigating allegations about Pete Long and Migi. It is uncertain however
whether these are allegations brought by the North Star or other allegations, so the weight of
this information is uncertain. If the police are investigating other allegations about the
activities of Migi, it gives more weight to the North Star’s reports that Migi might be involved
in terrorist activities. The other report tells us that there was an explosion, but makes it clear
that the cause is unknown, which puts the North Star’s wild assertions into a calmer context.
3 marks: Strong explanation of the significance with specific reference to each report.
2 marks: Some explanation of the significance, possibly talking about the reports generally.
1 mark: Some comments about the significance.
[Max 3]
© UCLES 2009
Page 4
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2009
Syllabus
9694
Paper
22
(d) How likely is it that Migi is involved in Southern Separatist Terrorist activities? Write a
short, reasoned argument to support your conclusion, using the evidence provided
and considering plausible alternatives.
[5]
Accept conclusions based on likelihood. Do not accept over-statements such as ‘Migi was
definitely a terrorist.’
Generic:
Acceptable conclusion in terms of probability
[1]
And:
3 marks: Reasoned argument involving thorough evaluation of the evidence to support the
conclusion.
2 marks: Evaluative reference to the evidence in support of the conclusion.
1 mark: Some reference to the evidence in support of the conclusion.
And:
Consideration of the plausibility of the alternative scenarios.
[1]
[Max 5]
Indicative content:
On the balance of probability it is not likely that Migi is involved in SST activities. Firstly the
reports that began the rumour from the North Star, themselves are not reliable. As it is from
the north, their reports shows their inability for them to accept that a Southerner could rise to
stardom. This rumour could also be a campaign to shot down Migi’s career as her songs
depict provocative lyrics describing the injustice of the South’s poverty. Furthermore, the
North Star claim that their resources were reliable, when in truth they may be biased.
Moreover, they branded themselves as warriors for the truth with the label, ‘our brave
campaign’ further showing that this is merely a business tactic to earn more sales and profits.
However, the press release by Migi’s team is also unreliable as they had vested interest in
protecting Migi’s reputation by denying any links to terrorist activities. Nevertheless, she
shows her innocence by being honest in the interview about knowing Peter Long not Dal
Sam, and this is corroborated by the televised news reports. In addition, the interview shows
of Peter’s innocence as Migi described him as one who would protect people not harm them.
However, her anger against the North for their oppression on the South may give substantial
thought to her guilt. Nevertheless, the second police report, shows the possibility of North
Star stretching the truth of Migi’s guilt as police claimed that there were other causes of the
explosion, including a backlash from Migi’s fans. Finally, Migi would not want to destroy her
own career as a singer by getting involved in such activities.
(1+ 3 +1 = 5. This is an outstanding answer.)
It is likely that Migi is involved in the SST activities as in the newspaper article of the North
Star, it states that Migi has repeatedly been seen in the company of Dal Sam, who is thought
to be a senior commander of SST. And according to the statement of a police in 5th of
October, it says that there is a photograph show that Peter Long was talking intently with
Migi. In addition, in television interview, Migi refused knowing that Peter was Dal Sam and
impliedly saying that Peter was not a terrorist. As stated by Migi, Peter was a good friend of
her and always used to protect her and the little kids from being bullied and Peter was like an
older brother to her. Therefore it is plausible that Migi acts out of loyalty to protect Peter
Long.
(1 + 1 + 1 = 3)
[Total: 15]
© UCLES 2009
Page 5
2
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2009
Syllabus
9694
Paper
22
(a) Consider Box A. Is making rats forget a strong feeling of disgust a good example of
erasing a specific memory? Explain your answer.
[3]
3 marks: Strong explanation, focussed on ‘specific memory.’
2 marks: Reasonable explanation, referring to the differences between rats and humans.
1 mark: Comment which might explain whether this is a good example.
Indicative content
It depends on whether a feeling of disgust counts as a memory. It’s not the same as
forgetting that you had an accident. But it might be more like turning down the emotional part
of a memory. Do the rats forget that they ate a food and were sick? Or do they just forget
the feeling of disgust? Will this work in people?
[Max 3]
(b) Consider Box B. Some people who would never take memory altering drugs
themselves believe that these drugs should be available for others. Can this reliably
be concluded? Explain your answer.
[3]
3 marks: Strong explanation of how the conclusion can be drawn.
2 marks: Reasonable explanation of why people might feel this way.
1 mark: Comment which might explain.
[Max 3]
Indicative content
Yes. 2000 people were asked 2 questions, so it was the same 2000 people. 52% of them
would never take memory altering drugs themselves, but 75% of the total thought that these
drugs should be available, either regulated or not. So some of these people must be the
same as the people who said they would never take the drugs.
(c) ‘Some people manage to injure themselves on their trousers.’ To what extent does
this reason oppose the development of memory-altering drugs?
[3]
3 marks: Strong explanation focussed on the quality of support given, perhaps considering
the differences between making mistakes with everyday objects and the care/
attention/regulation involved with potentially dangerous medication.
2 marks: Reasonable explanation, perhaps with candidate’s own opinion as the focus rather
than the link of support between reason and conclusion.
1 mark: Comment which might explain.
[Max 3]
Indicative content
On the one hand, it does show how irresponsible or daft people can be. If we can harm
ourselves so easily on harmless, everyday objects, there might be a case for protecting us
from harmful substances. On the other hand, if even trousers can harm some people, there
might be a case for saying, fine, some people are lost causes, let’s concentrate on the
majority, and on those who can benefit from this. It would be irrational to deprive some
people of a benefit just because some extreme cases would abuse it. In order to justify that
kind of protectionism, you’d have to show that there was a reasonable danger rather than
just a few idiots.
© UCLES 2009
Page 6
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2009
Syllabus
9694
Paper
22
(d) Should Governments fund further research into memory-altering drugs? Write a short,
reasoned argument to support your conclusion, using and evaluating the information
provided.
[6]
Level 3: Strong answer 5–6 marks
Reasoned argument which evaluates and uses the evidence in support of own thinking.
Level 2: Reasonable answer 3–4 marks
Simple argument with uses and/or evaluates the evidence.
Level 1: Weak answer 1–2 marks
Opinion/assertion with reference to the evidence OR a simple argument which makes no
reference to the evidence at all.
Note: Evaluation may include a consideration of the implications of the resource material as
well as the reliability and use of the evidence.
[Max 6]
Indicative content
Governments should fund research into memory-altering drugs. However, there should be
very strict regulations in regulating and monitoring the research. It represents a new
development of technology which is vital in modern era. Besides, according to source A,
patients could remember the details of an event, but did not feel upset remembering it. This
may help in crime investigations, where the memory of the victim is significant. According
source B, 36% of the 2000 people would take the drugs if they had been through a traumatic
experience. This is good for traumatised victims, it may help them to live with dignity and
lead a normal life as they lead before the traumatic experience happened to them.
According to Source C, it is a benefit to war veterans, accident victims and drug addicts. It
could help in the rehabilitation of drug addicts and also remove painful memories of the war
veterans and accident victims. This may contribute to their future well-being. According to
source D, the bloggers basically are objecting to mind-altering drugs. They claimed that bad
memories remind us of our mistakes and memories make us what we are today. They fail to
see that bad memories may reduce a strong person into a depressed or disturbed weakling.
Besides that, traumatic experience is not healthy.
(6 marks)
Yes, the Governments should fund further research into memory-altering drugs. This can be
shown by the research in New York that a chemical called ZIP had successfully erased
specific memories which can at the same time be able to work on human beings. Moreover,
the memory altering drug could be a useful tool to help people forget painful memories. And
it should be made available to the public and be strictly regulated and sold only to those who
need it. Besides the memory-altering drugs could lead certain people to healthier lives by
erasing those traumatic experience. As a conclusion it is a useful tool that should be kept on
researching to help the community who need it.
(3 marks)
[Total: 15]
© UCLES 2009
Page 7
3
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2009
Syllabus
9694
Paper
22
(a) Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
People should revise their expectations of Obama, though.
[1]
(b) Identify three reasons given to support the main conclusion.
[3]
Changing the whole world will take effort from all of us.
One man, no matter how powerful, cannot improve the world without us.
It is also important worldwide that citizens move away from the attitude that the Government
should solve all our problems.
This means that those people in Europe and Africa and Asia who have welcomed this new
President as their saviour are being misled by false hopes.
He may not be able to solve problems that others have caused.
People around the world will suffer greater deprivation in a few years’ time when a lesser
leader takes his place.
Obama is only the president of one part of the world.
Any three, one mark each.
(c) Evaluate the reasoning in paragraphs 1–6. In your answer you could consider any
strengths, weaknesses, flaws and any unstated assumptions.
[6]
Use grid below and see comments overleaf.
(d) ‘We need to accept responsibility for our own lives.’ Write your own short argument
to support or challenge this claim.
[5]
Use grid below and see comments on page 9.
Descriptor
(c) evaluation
max 6
Level 3
Evaluation of
strength of
argument with
critical reference
to assumptions,
weaknesses and
flaws.
Level 2
Some evaluative
comments
referring to
assumptions,
weaknesses
and/or flaws.
Level 1
Discussion of or
disagreement
with the
argument.
Level 0
No relevant
comments.
Weak counter
argument.
Relevant counter
argument
(d) further
argument
max 5
5–6 marks
Relevant,
developed
argument.
3–4 marks
One or more
relevant points
given in support
of candidate’s
conclusion.
1–2 marks
Relevant
comments.
0 marks
No argument.
Statement of
disagreement or
irrelevant
comment.
5 marks
3–4 marks
1–2 marks
0 marks
© UCLES 2009
Page 8
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2009
Syllabus
9694
Paper
22
Evaluation
There are persistent assumptions about what people around the world expect from Obama, some are
more realistic than others. The assumptions are not generally based on an understanding that
people’s hopes and expectations vary.
Assumption: people around the world hope that Obama will affect people outside the US – quite
reasonable given the tangled web of the world.
Assumption: people hope that Obama will solve global warming etc. Probably people don’t really
hope that he will solve these problems even if they do hope that he will help to make some or all of
them less problematic. Certainly anyone who did hope that Obama will provide a complete solution
should revise their hopes.
There is reasonable strength in the argument that one man cannot make decisions for everyone.
If you accept the premises, there is support for the claim that citizens move away from the attitude
that the government should solve all our problems, but there is room to challenge some of the
premises. There is a slight issue here about whether US citizens or world citizens are being talked
about and this makes a difference to the strength of the reasoning.
Obama being president in only one part of the world does not mean that he has no power to affect
those outside the US, so people outside the US are not necessarily being misled by false hopes on
this basis – although if they think of him as a saviour they may find they are hoping for too much!
Contradiction with the last paragraph in which a failure to re-elect Obama will cause disaster for those
around the world.
Slippery slope in the last paragraph with some links that might be ok, and some that are clearly
extreme.
Overall, if we accept that people have unduly high expectations of Obama, there is reason to accept
that people should revise their expectations of him.
Indicative content
The following are candidate’s part answers indicating level of performance:
The author says that Obama has no power to affect people outside the US but the author failed to
consider that Obama had been sending diplomats around the world to help improve or solve the
country’s problem. This has indirectly affect people outside the US. (Level 3)
The author ignored that the powerful president could change and affect the decision of the whole
world. (Level 2)
The decision we make in our daily lives (shopping etc.) may not affect the world. Politics does not
involve the public other than the elections. (Level 1)
© UCLES 2009
Page 9
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2009
Syllabus
9694
Paper
22
Further arguments
‘We need to accept responsibility for our own lives.’
Support:
It is bad for us to depend on others (support with examples). If we depend on others we do not direct
our own futures. If we accept responsibility for our own lives we are happier and more balanced
(support with examples). So we need to accept responsibility for our own lives.
Challenge:
So many of the things that happen to us in our lives are the result of things we cannot affect, such as
financial crises, or the country we were born in. This means that our lives simply are dependent on
others, so we cannot be responsible for things that are out of our control.
[Total: 15]
© UCLES 2009